No, these actions are seriously unethical: The evidence that scientists have been censoring contradictory views is "horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice. This is unethical.""Climate emails stoke debate"

Climate change is real, but man-made? There are "plenty of unanswered questions about AGW," says Rick Moran in Right Wing Nut House, without "non-scientists" mucking up the debate with political conspiracy theories. Global warming is real, but its causes aren’t clear—which is why we need all scientific points of view. If these "pretty damning" emails break open the cracks in angtropogenic climate warning theory, great. Maybe scientists will go back to "discovering facts.""Hadley emails don’t ‘prove’ global warming a crock"